Yes, defenders of the trinity doctrine have expressed displeasure when they see the way the New World translation renders John 1:1. But, the truth is that there is no dishonesty in the translation, and there are strong grammatical reasons for considering the inclusion of the indefinite article "a" as the proper thing to do in order to communicate to the English reader the same idea that the original Greek text gave to Greek readers. Please note that there was no explicit indefinite article in the Koine Greek. When translators include one (any where in the NT), it is because they see it implicit in the text. John 1:1 should be a clear example of this to all, if it were not for the fact that the Trinity doctrine creates such a strong cognitive dissonance in many otherwise capable translators. (Mr. BeDuhn explains this fact with great care and detail.)

Furthermore, the New World translation is neither the only nor the first translation to do this. In fact, one of the earliest translations of the Greek scriptures, one that may actually predate the establishment of the Trinity doctrine as official church doctrine (which took place in the fourth century CE) is particularly interesting. This is the Sahidic Coptic text (available for viewing in the Chester Beatty Library). The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.” Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O.*Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”

Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god (a divine being), not Almighty God.

Keep searching and you shall find.

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you and others here to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), there is soon to be published a 19+ year study (as of 10/2011), a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, you are invited to visit:

When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on about 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

I wonder which teaching you refer to. Do you mean the teaching that Jesus is not God but a creature created by God, "the firstborn of all creation"? (Colossians 1:15, 1 Corinthians 11:3) For a thorough explanation of our view in this subject see here.

Or do you mean the teaching that the soul is mortal and that when we die we go to the same place that Adam went to when he died, the dust? (Gen 3:19; Ezequiel 18:4) For an explanation about our understanding of this issue, please see here.

Or, let me see, are you upset about the teaching that paradise will actually be right here on Earth instead of in heaven, once Jehovah God cleanses the Earth and removes wicked people from it? (Psalms 37:10, 11, 29) Please see here for more on that.

I guess you could also mean the understanding Jehovah's witnesses have that the punishment for sinners is simply to die and not to burn eternally on fire. (Romans 6:7) See here if you want to know why Jehovah's witnesses believe that.

I could go on and on, listing things where Jehovah's witnesses beliefs differ from most other denominations. However, please note that there are strong reasons why Jehovah's witnesses have conscientiously decided to aligned their beliefs regarding those subjects differently than others.

Jehovah's witnesses believe that there are sincere people in all religions. We ourselves are sincerely trying to be the type of worshiper that "worships the father with spirit and truth". (John 4:23, 24) If you sincerely think we are mistaken in any such point, please let us know. I mean that would be the right thing to do, the Christian thing to do. Right? If you are interested in having a reasonable and respectful discussion about any such topic, please send me a PM. This forum and this thread is not the place to do so.

__________________
-- Worse than not knowing is not wanting to know! --

I downloaded the SBLGNT Ancient Greek version of the Bible and have lots of squares where the spiritus are. Using the DejaVu Sans font.

The same version of Bible downloaded from CrossWire doesn't have that many square, all spiritus are displayed correctly if BibleTime or Xiphos on a desktop computer is used. Rapier works in the same way.